After taking part in a public hearing last week on the proposed acquisition of China Network Systems (CNS) by Want Want China Broadband for more than NT$70 billion (US$2.4 billion), I have been beset by complicated feelings.
Want Want China Broadband is owned by a number of big corporations, including the Want Want Group, which has a 51 percent stake; Cathay Financial Holdings, which has 25 percent and the Eastern Multimedia Group with 10 percent.
If the merger goes through, we will be forced to accept a cross-media leviathan spanning not just wireless and cable television, but also newspapers, magazines and Internet services.
Despite the importance of the issue, the Consumers’ Foundation and the National Security Bureau did not send representatives to take part in the hearing, while the representative from the Consumer Protection Commission simply said that everything would be done in accordance with the law. Members of the public were allowed to attend the hearing, but they had no right to speak at it.
The merger proposal affects nearly 1.2 million viewers of cable TV services provided by the CNS group of companies, including Wonderful Cable TV in Taipei’s Da-an (大安) and Wenshan (文山) districts, New Vision Wave TV in New Taipei City’s Jhonghe (中和) and Yonghe (永和) districts, and 11 cable TV companies in Greater Tainan and Greater Kaohsiung — yet not a single borough warden was invited to speak. Company spokespeople put forward their points of view during the three-hour-long hearing — without challenge or interruption.
In addition, the companies presented their complicated acquisition proposals for the first time at the hearing. Experts, academics and stakeholders had no chance to read the proposals beforehand, and consequently were not able to offer any kind of constructive, accurate assessment of the plans at the meeting. If anything, their attendance merely served as a tool to endorse the corporations’ position.
Several years ago I served as an expert witness with the District of Columbia Public Service Commission, which regulates monopoly services in Washington. The US has an established system of public hearings for investigating and appraising public policy, designed to allow fair discussion among the parties concerned — the public, business and government.
For example, when electricity suppliers want to raise their prices, each of these three parties has to submit its proposal papers three months before a public hearing. This enables expert witnesses for the other two parties, such as financial and engineering experts, to examine the plans thoroughly. Having done so, lawyers representing the public, business and government are in a position to cross-examine expert witnesses brought in by the other two parties at the public hearing.
Based on this experience, I suggest a number of measures that should be taken.
First, before the CNS acquisition is approved, National Communications Commission members, the firms involved, consumers, experts and academics should be given the opportunity to thoroughly investigate the proposals. A series of public hearings should then be held so that the truth of the matter can be clarified step by step.
Second, the government should not just assist companies to develop their business, but also actively take steps to safeguard consumers’ interests.
Third, and even more important, is for consumers to pool their efforts to ensure that their viewing and listening rights are not adversely affected.
Jang Show-ling is a professor of economics and director of the Research and Development Office at National Taiwan University’s College of Social Sciences.
Translated by Julian Clegg
Apart from the first arms sales approval for Taiwan since US President Donald Trump took office, last month also witnessed another milestone for Taiwan-US relations. Trump signed the Taiwan Assurance Implementation Act into law on Tuesday. Its passing without objection in the US Senate underscores how bipartisan US support for Taiwan has evolved. The new law would further help normalize exchanges between Taiwanese and US government officials. We have already seen a flurry of visits to Washington earlier this summer, not only with Minister of Foreign Affairs Lin Chia-lung (林佳龍), but also delegations led by National Security Council Secretary-General Joseph Wu
When the towers of Wang Fuk Court turned into a seven-building inferno on Wednesday last week, killing 128 people, including a firefighter, Hong Kong officials promised investigations, pledged to review regulations and within hours issued a plan to replace bamboo scaffolding with steel. It sounded decisive. It was not. The gestures are about political optics, not accountability. The tragedy was not caused by bamboo or by outdated laws. Flame-retardant netting is already required. Under Hong Kong’s Mandatory Building Inspection Scheme — which requires buildings more than 30 years old to undergo inspection every decade and compulsory repairs — the framework for
President William Lai (賴清德) on Wednesday last week announced a plan to invest an additional NT$1.25 trillion (US$39.8 billion) in military spending to procure advanced defense systems over the next eight years, and outlined two major plans and concrete steps to defend democratic Taiwan in the face of China’s intensifying threat. While Lai’s plans for boosting the country’s national security have been praised by many US lawmakers, former defense officials, academics and the American Institute in Taiwan, the US’ de facto embassy in Taiwan, they were not equally welcomed by all Taiwanese, particularly among the opposition parties. Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman
President William Lai’s (賴清德) historic announcement on Wednesday, Nov. 26, of a supplemental defense budget valued in excess of US$40 billion is a testament to the seriousness with which Taiwan is responding to the relentless expansionist ambitions of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), the Chinese Communist Party and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA). Lai is responding to the threat posed to Taiwan sovereignty along with US President Donald Trump’s insistence that American partners in good standing must take on more responsibility for their own defense. The supplemental defense budget will be broken into three main parts. The first and largest piece
RSS